• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

From a Biggest Flood to a Biggest Fire

Jack Hays said:
No, they do not. They present an assumption based on belief and hope.
Click to expand...

No, they doin't. Go ahead and pretend that they do to your heart's content, but it's quite irrelevant to the reality of the matter. They involed no hope whatsoever.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, they doin't. Go ahead and pretend that they do to your heart's content, but it's quite irrelevant to the reality of the matter. They involed no hope whatsoever.
Click to expand...

No more familiar with epistemology than you were with history. Too bad.
 
Fletch said:
The problem is it is impossible to have a grown up conversation with childish fear mongers whose only goal is to empower the state. Do you know what the 'adult' answer to climate change is? Adapt.
Click to expand...

Fletch, can you explain why you think the concern for climate change is a nefarious conspiracy to “empower the state”? How do you so easily dismiss the possibility that climate scientists may be correct in their concerns? Certainly you have a reason for believing this. can you please explain it. I suspect it’s because you simply continue to believe the same liars who told you President Obama was born in Kenya, his BC a forgery and he wants to kill old people. If I’m right, no need to respond.
 
Vern said:
Fletch, can you explain why you think the concern for climate change is a nefarious conspiracy to “empower the state”? How do you so easily dismiss the possibility that climate scientists may be correct in their concerns? Certainly you have a reason for believing this. can you please explain it. I suspect it’s because you simply continue to believe the same liars who told you President Obama was born in Kenya, his BC a forgery and he wants to kill old people. If I’m right, no need to respond.
Click to expand...

Ah Vern, my old friend. Today is a sad day indeed. As much as I have enjoyed our back and forths over the years, I will not interact with people who run to the Mods whenever they read something they don't like. So this shall be the last time we speak. Ta ta
 
Fletch said:
Ah Vern, my old friend. Today is a sad day indeed. As much as I have enjoyed our back and forths over the years, I will not interact with people who run to the Mods whenever they read something they don't like. So this shall be the last time we speak. Ta ta
Click to expand...

ooo, before you cowardly cut and run for good, can you explain why you think I " run to the Mods whenever (I) read something (I) don't like. Or you could be really brave" and simply explain why you think "climate change is a nefarious conspiracy to “empower the state”? I'm not asking you to back up what you believe. we both know you cant. I'm just curious why you believe it. If you're too smart to explain, why aren't you smart enough not to post it in the first place.
 
Jack Hays said:
My point is not that someone might conceive a way out of a black hole, but rather that it is impossible to prove someone will not.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's also impossible to prove that our knowledge of black holes themselves is complete or that they are not immutable over time.

The arguments here against the assertion that the future is not knowable are knowably asinine.
 
Phys251 said:
Jesus ****ing Christ...how do you not get this. Your entire argument is one of the worst appeals to ignorance I have ever seen.

We can predict the state of the universe back to a fraction of a second before the Big Bang. You know how far back in time that goes? A LONG time. Nearly 14 billion years ago. And yet, because of the scientific breakthroughs that the great physicists--Einstein and Hubble, in particular--we don't have to speculate too much. We know, with near-certainty, that nearly all matter in the universe was annihilated in a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Why? Evidence. We have evidence. This isn't speculation. This is science. If you think all the laws of physics are getting ready to change in some massive cataclysmic event, then I am going to need extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim.

Or are you going to deny that truth as well? And please don't try the "that's not a negative" line on that one. You claim that everything I've said hangs on the immutability of the laws of physics. Care to march down to a nearby university and try to lecture some Ph.D's in physics about your findings? I'm sure they would be more than happen to listen to you. /snark
Click to expand...

Big Bang can be questioned without being denied. It is a theory not a universally accepted truth. It hasn't been fully reconciled with another theory, Einstein's on relativity. Big Bang indeed is disputed by some scientists.
 
Flood fire and now the biggest hurricane. Something's changing.
 
JackA said:
Big Bang can be questioned without being denied. It is a theory not a universally accepted truth. It hasn't been fully reconciled with another theory, Einstein's on relativity. Big Bang indeed is disputed by some scientists.
Click to expand...

Failure to reconcile a paradox does not mean that one or both parts of it are false. It may just mean that scientists haven't found the bridge between the two yet. For instance, how in the world did the reptilian dinosaurs evolve into feathery birds? Birds exist; dinosaurs existed; the evidence existed for a link between the two. But what? Archaeopteryx, of course. Voila, tangible evidence of a creature that was somewhere on that bridge.
 
Phys251 said:
Failure to reconcile a paradox does not mean that one or both parts of it are false. It may just mean that scientists haven't found the bridge between the two yet. For instance, how in the world did the reptilian dinosaurs evolve into feathery birds? Birds exist; dinosaurs existed; the evidence existed for a link between the two. But what? Archaeopteryx, of course. Voila, tangible evidence of a creature that was somewhere on that bridge.
Click to expand...

Said "questioned", not false.
 
JackA said:
Said "questioned", not false.
Click to expand...

The existence of the Big Bang is pretty close to being settled and decided. Not all the way there, but close. Close enough such that certain other

Other phenomena, such as why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, are not yet understood. Perhaps future studies will give us better insight into this.
 
Phys251 said:
The existence of the Big Bang is pretty close to being settled and decided. Not all the way there, but close. Close enough such that certain other

Other phenomena, such as why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, are not yet understood. Perhaps future studies will give us better insight into this.
Click to expand...

[h=3]No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning - Phys.org[/h]
Phys.org › Physics › Quantum Physics

Feb 9, 2015 - (Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. ... In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom